September 28, 2012
-
Sex with underage women is illegal? Since when?
So. Let me get this straight. A pastor in one of the most legalistic, “thou shalt not” obsessed, hair-splitting, absolutist sects of Christianity was “unaware” that it’s not legal to have sex with 16 year old girls if you’re 54.
Oh, sure, he knew it was “unprofessional”. Yeah. Rape generally *is* unprofessional. (Unless you’re a pro athlete, a rock star, or a Catholic priest. Yeah. I went there.)
And he knew it was “a sin”, but, you know, he’ll be forgiven.
But illegal? Hold on, there are laws that say there are things men aren’t allowed to do to women? Wait, what? When did that happen? Is this something Obama did, that darned secret communist Muslim? I’ll bet it is. I mean, women have *rights*? Even *young* women? What’s up with that?
I can only assume this is some sort of legal ploy, an attempt to reduce his sentence by claiming he would not have knowingly violated the law. Violating a 16 year old girl who trusted him, and whom he had a position of extreme authority over? Yeah, that he’d do, but he wouldn’t have violated the law, if only he (a man who has spent most of his life running a school and working with adolescents in children) had been aware of the law. I mean, it’s not like his job and career would, in any way, require him to be familiar with the laws governing the rights of children and the responsibilities of adults who are placed in authority over children, right?
Ultimately, though, the legal issue is subordinate to the moral issue when it comes to passing judgment — and I judge, and I am prepared to be judged, by the same standards I judge others. Even if one is foolish enough to believe his claim that he didn’t know it was illegal, he did know it was immoral, and that’s really what matters. Many moral things are illegal; many legal things are immoral. It is the mark of the depraved man, who, when caught committing immoral acts, whether a corrupt preacher, politician, or businessman, defends himself by claiming the acts weren’t illegal. The law does not define right and wrong; the law only defines what society has decided is sufficiently wrong that we’re willing to shoot you for doing it. (All laws are backed by lethal force, if pushed to the extreme. Otherwise, they’re not laws, they’re declarations from the UN.)
Comments (2)
Don’t the Mormons have underage wives? C’mon, bigamy & statutory rape are for ‘the other guys.’ Those pro athletes, a rock stars, & Catholic priests are immune aren’t they?
People like that disgust me. I judge right along with you. Sounds like he’s trying to excuse his bad behavior and I, for one, won’t buy it.
The criminal charges against Rev. Sleazy here strike me as a case of “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Basing the law on “what society has decided is sufficiently wrong that we’re willing to shoot you for doing it” is a bad move (and if you disagree, four words: “The War on Drugs.”)
Now if the crime had been “using your authority to make a woman have sex with you,” with it not mattering whether the woman was 16, or 26, or 56, then that would have been a different matter. But as it is, I have to stick with “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
My own take is that someone old enough to be held responsible for committing rape is old enough to consent to sex, and vice versa. Now if you believe that 16 is too young to consent, and believe it strongly enough to accept that 16 year-olds ought to be excused from rape charges because they’re too young to know any better, then I’ll listen politely to your arguments. But if you don’t believe in the former strongly enough to accept the later, then I’ll stick with my view of criminalizing 16/54 sex as being a case of two wrongs not making a right.